HEAR, HEAR
Ken TC 4147
Murray Arundell wrote:
> When is everybody going to grow p and understand that MGs existed for only
> one reason. They made money for the guy who owned the company. In our case
> in the past it was Lord Nuffield, then later BMC and BL.
>
> Will someone tell me what is the difference now that Rover/BMW own MG. I
> don't know about Charley but I love my three MGs because of ehat they are
> and not who owns them. Lets all be clear on one thing. MGs began as a
> marketing exercise by one Mr C. Kimber esq. They were no or no less than a
> way of selling more Morris Cars.
>
> For me I am tired of reading this rubiish about the MGF being "nothing more
> than a cynical marketing exercise". The MGF was designed from the outset to
> be a sports car for the 90's and hopefully beyond. Its developement has been
> well funded (unlike our beloved A's and B's), well designed and well liked
> by the public. Witness that it out sold the MX-5/Miata last year worldwide.
>
> I have done quite a few miles in an F and my only complaint is that it is a
> bit cramped for a six foot plus guy like me. But then I had to alter my TC
> seating to fit in as well.
>
> So will people stop bleating about the F and its derivatives not being an MG
> and instead treat it for what it is, a developement of a theme. After all
> there is very little to connect an MGA or B with say a TC, except for the
> badge. As for not being built in the Abingdon factory consider that many MG
> owners consider anything not built in the Oxford factory to be nothing more
> that a spin off from their wonderful cars.
>
> With all due respect Charles, lighten up and please tell me what car the F
> is supposed to be a spin off of.
>
> Murray Arundell
> 1945 MG-TC
> 1965 MGB-MkI
> 1975 MGB GT-V8
> 1998 Landrover Discovery SE V8i
> Would have 1998 MGF VVC if only I could drive it with my shoes on!!
|